TORONTO — There was drama and raw emotion at a refugee hearing Wednesday as a foreign citizen argued he was in need of Canada’s protection from his own government — but a sweeping publication ban prevents the National Post from revealing details of the person or his unusual case.

The person concerned testified all day before the Immigration and Refugee Board, at one point having to stop when he broke into tears and gasps, his face growing red and flustered, as he described his treatment abroad.

As he tried to sip water from a cup in front of him, he could barely raise the paper cup to his lips because he remained handcuffed, with the cuffs then shackled to a wide restraint around his waist. Two guards watched over him.

IRB decision maker Patrick Roche told him to go slow and take deep breaths. After regaining his composure, the man explained why he was seeking refugee protection in Canada.

“I trust the Canadian justice system and the Canadian immigration system much more than in my own country,” the refugee claimant said.

Mr. Roche has allowed a reporter for the Post to observe the proceedings but issued a publication ban that prevents identifying information of the person from being published, including the man’s age and special circumstances.

It makes for an awkward news report. It also made for an awkward hearing.

“It’s an odd case in terms of the order,” Mr. Roche said as he gently chided representatives of the Canada Border Services Agency, who are arguing the man is inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of “serious non-political crimes,” for breaching his order that the person not be referred to by name in the hearing, instead called only “the principle claimant.”

The man faced questions all day, by the CBSA, by his own lawyer and from Mr. Roche. The hearing is scheduled to continue on Thursday with more of his testimony, testimony from other related claimants, and from two witnesses, one of whom is a lawyer from a foreign country.

Mr. Roche is hearing evidence on whether the person concerned is eligible for consideration as a refugee or excluded because of the government’s allegations he committed serious non-political crimes contrary to Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

If excluded, the principle claimant will have his claim for refugee
status refused and will likely be removed to his home country. The two related claimants will have separate decisions made on their claims.

If the person is found to be “not excluded,” he will then have his claim for refugee status decided, with the IRB assessing whether he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his homeland.